Re: Brief of interactive Beam

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:25 PM Ning Kang wrote: > On Aug 23, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > Cool, sounds like we're getting closer to the same page. Some more replies > below. > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:47 PM Ning Kang wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, Robert! I think I

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Great! I’ve added some proposals. And to clarify, we want to use explicit name “Interactive Beam” instead of the short name “iBeam”. Sorry for the confusion. > On Aug 23, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > Cool, sounds like we're getting closer to the same page. Some more replies >

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Cool, sounds like we're getting closer to the same page. Some more replies below. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:47 PM Ning Kang wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Robert! I think I got your idea. > Let me summarize it to see if it’s correct: > 1. You want everything about > > standard Beam concepts

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Thanks for the feedback, Robert! I think I got your idea. Let me summarize it to see if it’s correct: 1. You want everything about > >> standard Beam concepts to follow existing pattern: so we can shot down create_pipeline() and keep the InteractiveRunner notion when constructing pipeline, I

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:33 PM GMAIL wrote: > Thanks for the input, Robert! > > On Aug 21, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ning Kang wrote: > >> Ahmet, thanks for forwarding! >> >> >>> My main concern at this point is the introduction of new

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Thanks for the input, Robert! > On Aug 21, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ning Kang > wrote: > Ahmet, thanks for forwarding! > > My main concern at this point is the introduction of new concepts, even > though these

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ning Kang wrote: > Ahmet, thanks for forwarding! > > >> My main concern at this point is the introduction of new concepts, even >> though these are not changing other parts of the Beam SDKs. It would be >> good to see at least an alternative option covered in the

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Hi Pablo, Thanks for reviewing the doc. I think I can grasp some of the concepts, but it is not yet 100% clear to > me why it's necessary to define a new abstraction to have interactivity. > Could you elaborate? > It's not clear to me what the "new abstraction" you are mentioning is. But if it

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Hi Ning! Thanks for the design doc and the explanations. I think I can grasp some of the concepts, but it is not yet 100% clear to me why it's necessary to define a new abstraction to have interactivity. Could you elaborate? Perhaps as a section in the doc? : ) A lot of the motivation for this

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Q1: The document is shared (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DYWrT6GL_qDCXhRMoxpjinlVAfHeVilK5Mtf8gO6zxQ/edit?usp=sharing). If inside Google, short link (go/ibeam-external). I cannot share internal documents, but you can reach out if you need internal engineering plan. Q2: Yes, watch() is

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Ahmet, thanks for forwarding! > My main concern at this point is the introduction of new concepts, even > though these are not changing other parts of the Beam SDKs. It would be > good to see at least an alternative option covered in the design document. > The reason is each additional concept

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Ning, I believe Robert's questions from his email has not been answered yet. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM Ning Kang wrote: > Hi all, I'll leave another 3 days for design > > review. > Then we

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Hi all, I'll leave another 3 days for design review. Then we can have a vote session if there is no objection. Thanks! On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:14 PM Ning Kang wrote: > Thanks Ahmet for the

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Thanks for the note. Are there any associated documents worth sharing as well? More below. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:39 PM Ning Kang wrote: > To whom may concern, > > This is Ning from Google. We are currently making efforts to leverage an > interactive runner under python beam sdk. > > There is

Re: Brief of interactive Beam

Ning, thank you for the heads up. All, this is a proposed work for improving interactive Beam experience. As mentioned in Ning's email, new concepts are being introduced. And in addition iBeam as a name is used as a new reference. I hope that bringing the discussion to the mailing list will give